Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC? (Read 6792 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Hi all,

I'm currently subscribing to Comcast Rhapsody, which uses 160 kb .wma files when you download a song. I've been thinking of switching to Itunes, so I looked on their website to see what kind of music file they use, they say their music files are MPEG-4 AAC. I'm a computer guy, but only a little knowledgeable when it comes to computer audio. My question is, which has a higher quality sound? I'll switch if MPEG-4 AAC is better than the 160 wma. Also, do any of you itunes subscribers have opinions on the variety of music offered? For example, are chances good that they'll have most or all of a band's catalog online? Any comments appreciated!

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #1 –
I think the equivalent purchased tracks from Rhapsody are 192Kbps AAC.  160Kbps WMA is used for "Rhapsody To Go" subscription content... not purchased tracks.  (Unless this has changed recently.)  iTunes Music Store is "purchase only" and uses Apple's 128Kbps AAC.

Anyway, regarding content... you can browse the 'stores' for free and see if they fit your needs.

(The other big players are Yahoo! Music and MTV's URGE, which use 192 Kbps WMA for both subscription and purchased content.)

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #2 –
The Rhapsody stuff that you download via their Save button (As in save to my hard drive) is definately 160 wma, so I think something has changed since whenever you're thinking of. The music file player shows the rate right in the window. Im a new subscriber so I don't know  what it was before I joined.

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #3 –
Can you burn those tracks to CD?  I'm talking about purchasing, not "renting" tracks.

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: pjb515 on
The Rhapsody stuff that you download via their Save button (As in save to my hard drive) is definately 160 wma, so I think something has changed since whenever you're thinking of. The music file player shows the rate right in the window. Im a new subscriber so I don't know  what it was before I joined.


There's some confusion as to which format Rhapsody focuses on. When it first premiered, the service DID offer 192 kbps AAC files. Then Real (Rhapsody's owner) did a deal with MS, some WMA got mixed in, and I'm not sure where things went from there. But if your files are WMA then that must be what it is.

The results of an HA.org listening test here seem to indicate that AAC is the superior choice at the same bitrate. Deciding between the two formats at different bitrates would require your own ABX test, which is probably gonna be next to impossible directly due to the DRM on both Rhapsody and iTunes purchased songs.

Also, iTunes does NOT have a subscription service - their songs are available a-la-carte. If you must have a subscription service, I'm afraid you'll be stuck with either WMA stores (such as Rhapsody or Napster) or Emusic.com (MP3 downloads, mostly indie music).

Of course, there are other ways of obtaining the music you want with far less hassle and a lot more flexibility. Nuff said.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #5 –
Quote
The results of an HA.org listening test here seem to indicate that AAC is the superior choice at the same bitrate.


Uh, did you look at that test? WMA and AAC are perfecty tied there...

Anyway, I highly doubt that the perceived quality difference 160k WMA or 128k AAC will be very significant. I would focus more on the terms and conditions:
How expensive is it?
Can I burn it to CD?
Does it work on my portable player?
Do I want "rental" (ie, cheap music for a limited time) or "purchase" (costly, but unlimited)?
Restricted (WMA-stores like Rhapsody, iTunes Music store) or unrestricted (Beatport, Audiojelly, Emusic, Warp)?

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: eofor on
Uh, did you look at that test? WMA and AAC are perfecty tied there...

I'm sure that LANjackal had another test in mind. The linked one is about WMAPro, not "WMA" - which doesn't have many things in common with the tested encoder (excepted the first half of the name).
WMAStd (aka WMA) wasn't tested recently at 128 kbps. The results of the latest one can be founded here. And indeed, WMA's score was significantly (but not dramatically) lower than AAC. In the meantime, WMA was updated two times (v9.1 and v10 - the latter is still in beta stage) whereas different AAC encoders (Apple, Nero) were improved much more frequently.

Which is better? 160 kb wma or the Itunes MPEG-4 AAC?

Reply #7 –
Whoa, sorry, I just noticed this was in the Listening tests forum, I thought I was in General Audio at the time I posted! Could an Admin maybe move this?

I swear, it's not my first day on the computer!